Air Traffic Monitoring > Aviation Audio Clips
Random short clips
Carro:
This is older. The controller wanted them to keep their speed up and the pilot said they couldn't do that. She then cancelled their approach clearance and the pilot told her she should not do that for traffic behind them. I was just curious who was right in this? They were vectored around in a circle and was cleared the approach again about five minutes later, free speed this time.
Carro:
This is three short clips of controllers having a little fun with their coworkers.
wiedehopf:
Miscommunication.
If the pilot had offered 180 knots to 6 or even 7 DME the controller would have had no problem.
The controller could have also offered that because i think the BA pilot was a little too huffy to even understand the question how long he would be able to maintain 180.
ZALPO is at 6.8 DME which is 5.4 nmi from the threshold.
(https://de.flightaware.com/resources/airport/KJFK/IAP/ILS+OR+LOC+RWY+22L/pdf)
In the approach chart you can also see another problem: DME is 1.4 nmi more than distance to the threshold.
Now the controllers mean 180 to 5 nmi from the threshold.
Saying "180 knots to 5 miles" would be unambiguous.
180 to 5 DME is a little ambiguous though.
Not sure if that ambiguity is ever a problem, but i believe it might well be sometimes.
Anyway the pilot was busy explaining why he couldn't fulfill that ("ridiculous" in his eyes) request.
The controller only wanted to know how long he could maintain 180.
Which he then replied that he was slowing to 160.
When the approach clearance was given the BA plane was "7 from ZALPO" which means on a 12 mile final.
Slowing to 160 so far out was as i said probably a misunderstanding.
They were both within their rights to do what they did though.
The pilot can slow down if he deems it necessary and the controller can resequence them to keep up efficiency.
One might argue just slowing down the plane behind BA might have been more efficient and that the controller acted out of spite.
But being uncooperative with ATC might get you going in circles, that's just how it is.
VASAviation:
Totally agree with you, Wiede.
Thanks for sharing, Carro! Do you know what date this was? I can try find the ADSB data of the airplanes and display them on my radar simulator to see how close the traffic behind was or what was the sequence that the lady had built up.
Anyway, I think BAW was wrong here - kind of - and a bit obstinate.
Carro:
Wiedehopf, thank you for your detailed answer. So from your answer I take it that it is not true, the way the BA pilot clamied, that it is not an FAA approved reason to cancel their approach clearance for traffic that they are ahead of?
--- Quote from: VASAviation on July 01, 2019, 05:47:20 AM ---Do you know what date this was? I can try find the ADSB data of the airplanes and display them on my radar simulator to see how close the traffic behind was or what was the sequence that the lady had built up.
--- End quote ---
This was in April, do you still have data that far back?
It was this one
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/BAW115/history/20190419/1330Z/EGLL/KJFK
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version